# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
As usual in IPPM there are slightly different camps, some more interested in
IOAM than end-to-end active measurement protocols and vice versa. Within the
group of interested people this work had broad agreement.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Early on there were discussions around metric contributions from the hosts and
applications as opposed to solely measuring the network. This topic is
adequately addressed in the document according to WG consensus and the opinion
of the shepherd.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
no.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
There are a number of both open- and closed source implementations reported in
the "Additional Resources" section of the Datatracker page. There is also a
community Wiki where implementations can be reported. A link to the WiKi can be
found in the "Additional Resources" Datatracker page.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
There is no close interaction with other working groups. No external reviews
have occurred. However, since this document does discuss matters of congestion
control, the use of parallel transport connections to saturate paths and active
queue management it will be important with a proper TSVART review.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document proposes a new well-known URI. Such a registration requires review
by designated expert(s) assigned by IESG (see bullet 21 below).
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
n/a
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
n/a
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
There is definitely need for this document, it provides valuable enhancements
to the field of network quality estimation, with a strong focus on end-user
perceived quality. There are some nits and editorial issues as described below,
but aside from that it is a well written document, properly designed and ready
to be handed off.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
n/a
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Per discussion with all authors there are no known IPRs that apply to this
document.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Nits and minor issues discovered during shepherd review:
Consider adding a "Conventions and Definitions" subsection prior to 1.1 with
appropriate text and normative reference to RFC 2119.
The reference to TCP is outdated in section 3, consider changing to RFC 9293.
Section 4.2: "Experience has shown that the default values for these parameters
allow for a low runtime for the test and produce accurate results in a wide
range of environments." - A reference to results would be useful if available.
Section 4.3:
"tcp_f, tls_f, http_f and http_s are all measured in milliseconds". Call me a
purist but I'd argue that one should try to stick to MKS system (meter,
kilogram, second) as much as possible. It is perfectly OK to encode protocol
headers as milliseconds, nanoseconds or whatever but I think that measurement
output should be in MKS to avoid confusion. I can make an exception regarding
the RPM metric as it rings well with "Revolutions per Minute" and can then
perhaps be easier to understand for the general public. But given my general
nit, the equation is then Responsiveness = 60.0 /
(1/6*(TM(tcp_f) + TM(tls_f) + TM(http_f)) + 1/2*TM(http_s)
Section 7.1 and 7.2: consider using example.{com | org | net | edu} or the
.example top domain for all the examples.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
no
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
n/a
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
no
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
no
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
no
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The document proposes a well-known URI and a new service name, sections 9.1 and
9.2 request registrations in the "well-known URI" registry and the "Service
Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" separately.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
The Well-known URI registry registers new URIs on the advice of one or more
IESG appointed Designated Experts. No particular guidance is given in the IANA
section, but section 7.1 describes the intended use of the well-known URI.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/